The issue is not unknown in his tory it is raised in medicine and law. As far as education is concerned, I may confess at once that I have put the question in its apparently question-begging form in order to avoid dis cussion of questions that are important but that are also full of thorns and attended with con troversial divisions. It is enough for our purposes to note that the word science has a wide range. There are those who would restrict the term to mathematics or to disciplines in which exact results can be determined by rigorous methods of demonstration. Such a conception limits even the claims of physics and chemistry to be sciences, for according to it the only scientific portion of these subjects is the strictly mathe matical. The position of what are ordinarily termed the biological sciences is even more dubious, while social subjects and psychology would hardly rank as sciences at all, when measured by this definition. Clearly we must take the idea of science with some latitude. We must take it with sufficient looseness to include all the subjects that are usually regarded as sciences. The important thing is to discover those traits in virtue of which various fields are called scientific. When we raise the question in this way, we are led to put emphasis upon methods of dealing with subject-matter rather than to look for uniform objective traits in sub ject-matter. From this point of view, science signifies, I take it, the existence of systematic methods of inquiry, which, when they are brought to bear on a range of facts, enable us to understand them better and to control them 8 more intelligently, less haphazardly and with less routine. No one would doubt that our practices in hygiene and medicine are less casual, less re sults of a mixture of guess work and tradition, than they used to be, nor that this difference has been made by development of methods of investigating and testing. There is an intel lectual technique by which discovery and or ganization of material go on cumulatively, and by means of which one inquirer can repeat the researches of another, confirm or discredit them, and add still more to the capital stock of knowledge. Moreover, the methods when they are used tend to perfect themselves, to suggest new problems, new investigations, which refine old procedures and create new and better ones. The question as to the sources of a science of education is, then, to be taken in this sense. What are the ways by means of which the func tion of education in all its branches and phases selection of material for the curriculum, methods of instruction and discipline, organi zation and administration of schools can be conducted with systematic increase of intelli gent control and understanding What are the materials upon which we may and should draw in order that educational activities may become in a less degree products of routine, tradition, accident and transitory accidental influences From what sources shall we draw so that there shall be steady and cumulative growth of intelligent, communicable insight and power, of direction Here is the answer to those who decry peda gogical study on the ground that success in teaching and in moral direction of pupils is often not in any direct ratio to knowledge of educational principles. Here is A who is much more successful than B in teaching, awakening the enthusiasm of his students for learning, inspiring them morally by personal example and contact, and yet relatively ig norant of educational history, psychology, ap proved methods, etc...